The New Offices. (1923)

From the December 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

"No, Jack! I shall not join just yet. Your Party is right, your position sound, and your arguments conclusive. I admit all that, but I don't think the time is ripe. When that time comes, Jack, 'You may count on me.”

"And when do you think the time will be ripe, as you call it?"

"I haven't a ghost of a notion. But I'd like to see the workers wake up a bit , first. I'd like to see your Party bigger, more active, you know what I mean - more prominent.”

"So would I, friend. But apparently you have not seen our new headquarters, I can hear."

"New headquarters? I -"

"Listen! It is neither a pretentious, nor a massive building. We are not building it for posterity; we shall not need it long. Immediately to the right of the entrance hall, there is a book saloon wherein any work helpful to the furtherance of Socialism may be procured or consulted. Most of the leading periodicals are represented on the reading stands. To the left are the editorial offices, where the three official journals and numbers of pamphlets are produced"

"Three official journals? I –“

"Wait a minute. There is the Socialist Standard, now enlarged to forty pages, still appearing monthly and having all the characteristics of a first-class political review. There is the Socialist Tribune, a weekly summary of a more topical character. It focuses the reader's attention upon events whilst they are still current, and picks out the thread of history whilst it is being made. The Socialist News appears daily, and, I say it without boasting, is unique in the world's journalism. Not an advertisement appears in it. It is thus entirely free from subsidised matter, and is independent of any attempt at a capitalist boycott. It is smaller in size than the usual capitalist rag, but it is all meat. Its editorial and contributory staffs are well grounded in Marxian economics and their historical application. Its daily articles are the despair of the few remaining capitalist sheets, for the latter's long reliance upon reiterated lies and mass suggestion has broken down in face of hard economic facts. You cannot convince a man who is going down for the third time that he is not drowning by bawling through a megaphone fifteen times that all is for the best. And the workers were no longer convinced that capitalism was the only possible system, when they remembered the hard times before the war, the little glimpse of better times during the war's progress, and the return to bad times again afterwards. But I am digressing. There is a dispatch department at the back, and that about completes the ground floor. Upstairs there are writing rooms, studies, classrooms and committee rooms. There is a good-sized hall for lectures and public meetings, and there is even an information bureau, where anyone with a difficulty may seek Socialist 'counsel's opinion'. The most interesting perhaps are the organiser's room, where information, facts and figures are compiled for the use of our staff of speakers and propagandists. There are other details you would find interesting, and even stimulating, but I think I have said enough to set you wondering."

"You have, Jack! I have been wondering where these premises are situated."

"There now! If you, a convinced Socialist, were only in the movement, you would know as much as I about it."

"Yes! But tell me, Jack, where are these new headquarters?"

"Well! At the moment, they are in my mind's eye. All we are waiting for is for you, and many others like you, to leave off waiting for the time to be ripe, and to come and help ripen it. We shall get our new offices and our new journals, when we get the funds. We shall get the funds when we get the members. We shall get the members when you leave off waiting, as I said just now, and start working. Then will follow, not merely new offices and journals, but, greater than all else, a new social system -Socialism. Join up!"

W.T. Hopley

Good Cap, Bad Cap (2008)

From the November 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

The credit crisis has tarnished the image of capitalism but its defenders may help it live on by pinning all of the blame on financiers.

Investment bankers have gone in the past few months from being the “masters of the universe” to the object of universal scorn. Across the political spectrum in the United States, particularly at the fraying ends of its two main political parties, criticism of Wall Street can be heard. Even McCain and Obama – whose presidential campaigns have been generously funded by Wall Street – have had to make half-hearted statements about how “greed is, um, bad.”

This criticism is richly deserved, of course, but many of the harshest critics of speculators are fond of capitalism itself and take a rather benevolent view towards other types of capitalists. Greedy bankers and stockbrokers are lambasted, but in the next breath the capitalists involved in the actual production and sale of commodities are portrayed as unfortunate victims of the credit crisis. This one-sided criticism suits the capitalist class as a whole just fine.

Now that capitalists themselves are at least exposing some of the high crimes and low comedy connected to their own financial system, and so much popular attention is focused on the role of money capitalists, it seems particularly necessary for us to attack the false notion that there are “good” and “bad” capitalists; and that crisis could be avoided and capitalism perfected if the bad ones could be kept under control or swept away.

Den of thieves
This idea that bankers – particularly investment bankers – are any worse than other types of capitalists is not convincing to anyone aware that the revenue of all capitalists flows from same source: the exploitation of labour. The dirty little secret of capitalism is that the capitalist class as a whole, and all of the individual capitalists, enrich themselves thanks to workers adding more new value to the commodities they produce than the value of the wages received as payment for their labour-power.

Any party to this exploitation of labour – whether the capitalist who advances the investment funds, the capitalist who supervises the commodity production process, or the capitalist who is tasked with selling the commodities – is entitled to a piece of the action and merits an equal share of the blame. It is nonsense to argue that one type of capitalist is more or less culpable than the others.

The relations between capitalists are very much like those between a group of thieves, who cooperate to pull off a heist and then divide the loot among themselves. Conflicts easily arise from such an arrangement: as a bigger share for one means a smaller share for the others. Such squabbles, however, are of little concern to the person who has been robbed. Likewise, for workers, divisions within the capitalist class should be of secondary interest to the more fundamental conflict between the exploiters and the exploited.

Yet we need to do more than simply prove that the idea of “good” and “bad” capitalists is wrong: it is also necessary to explain how this false ideology has a basis in reality that makes it seem plausible to many. That basis, as just touched on, is the antagonism that actually exists between different types of capitalists with regard to how surplus-value is divided between them. This fosters the notion that fundamental differences exist between capitalists and that some are more deserving of their revenue – an impression that is further deepened by the fact that revenue takes different forms that appear to be independent of each other.

This means that we can better understand why money capitalists and industrial capitalists tend to be viewed differently by examining the division of surplus-value between them and the specific forms of their revenue. Marx does this in Volume 3 of Capital, where he examines “interest” and “profit of “enterprise” – the former being the revenue that the money capitalist is entitled for loaning capital to the industrial capitalist, while the latter is the profit the industrial capitalist receives after paying that interest to the money-capitalist.

Marx’s discussion of “interest” and “profit of enterprise” is not directly related to the economic activities of the now-disgraced stockbrokers, as they have made money in more imaginative ways than simply earning interest, yet his observations reveal why it is so easy for bankers to be cast in the role of villains, while those capitalists owning actual means of production appear in a more favourable light.

Magical money
We can begin by looking at interest – or “interest-bearing capital,” to be more exact. The loaning of money to function as capital is the first step in the overall circuit of capital, M–C– M´; and that money (M) is then used to purchase the labour-power and materials of production needed to produce commodities (C), which embody more value than the value of those inputs, making it possible to sell them for a greater sum of money (M´) than initially invested. Part of this surplus in value generated through production is paid to the money capitalist in the form of interest.

With the form of “interest-bearing capital,” however, we only the two extremes of the circuit above, or: M–M´. In other words, nothing more than the money capitalist loaning out money that returns eventually in a greater amount. Money seems to have the magical power to breed more money. Overlooked is the intervening process of production, which is the actual source of the interest earned. As long as interest successfully flows back to the money capitalist, whatever happens between M and M´ is a matter of indifference. It thus appears at first glance – to this capitalist and others – that profits can emerge regardless of production.

This illusion is reinforced by the fact that individual money owners can indeed loan money for non-productive uses. Everyone knows, for instance, that credit card companies make huge profits by charging ordinary “consumers” usurious interest rates. Yet that freedom to direct money towards non-productive sectors, or to engage in speculation on fictitious forms of capital, only holds true for individual capitalists. If a large portion of the industrial capitalists were to withdraw from production, so as to become money capitalists, the ultimate source of profit would quickly dry up and the rate of interest would plummet.

Nevertheless, if we view the capitalist world from the perspective of the individual interest-bearing capital, it seems that profits can materialize out of thin air, without actual production. Marx thus calls interest-bearing capital the “most superficial and fetishized form” of the capital relationship, where capital “appears as a mysterious and self-creating source of interest, of its own increase.” Instead of appearing to be one part of the total surplus-value, interest seems to arise from an inherent property of capital itself, so that any owner of it is entitled to interest.

With interest, we are one step removed from the actual process of production; and from the exploitation of labour that occurs within that process. This fact is at the root of the tendency for people to view money capitalists – and for them to view themselves – as inhabiting in a rarefied world where it is not necessary to get one’s hands dirty. The money capitalists who engage in this mysterious process, whereby money is able to breed more money, both dazzle and disgust those who must earn a living in more pedestrian ways.

Capitalist workers?
If the interest that the money capitalists earns seems to spring out of thin air, the industrial capitalists, in contrast, seem to earn their profits from the sweat of their brow. Their “profit of enterprise” – which is what remains after they pay money capitalists interest – appears to be the fruit of functioning capital, rather than the fruit of owning capital. Just as there is an abstraction from the actual production (= exploitation) process in the case of interest-bearing capital, in the case of profit of enterprise the production process is separated from capital itself, so that it appears merely to be labour process. Profit seems to accrue to industrial capitalists as payment for a useful function performed in that labour process.

There is in fact an important role played by the industrial capitalist, and that is to ensure that the production process is carried out in a manner that facilitates the greatest extraction of surplus-value from workers. Not exactly a noble calling, but exceedingly necessary under the class-divided capitalist system. The profit of the industrial capitalist thus seems to be a “wage” received for this supervision of labour. It appears, as Marx wittily put it, that the “labour of exploiting and the labour exploited are identical, both being labour.” If the former receives far better wages for that labour, it is said to be compensation for its more “complex” character.

This false impression that the industrial capitalist is a sort of worker seems plausible because the act of supervision, necessary in any class-divided society, is confused with the coordination function necessary when numerous workers engage in production together. We need to distinguish between the supervision needed to extract surplus-value from wage-slaves, and the coordination necessary in the case of combined or social labour. In the latter case, the workers themselves can quite easily work things out for themselves and determine the most appropriate way to combine their labour – there is no need for the menacing supervisor. Under capitalism, however, there is a blurring of the two functions, so that it seems as if capitalists (or whoever is hired by them to supervise workers) are performing a necessary function that is intrinsic to the labour process itself.

The fact that industrial capitalists play an active role in the production process, however reactionary it may be in fact, provides a basis for the claim that they are preferable to the money capitalists who do nothing more than provide the investment. Yet even in the case of the industrial capitalists, who are disguised as wage-workers, the labour process is simply a means to an end. It is only because that process is the direct source of their profits that industrial capitalists take such a keen interest in it.

The real task
Strange things occur when surplus-value is divided up among different types of capitalists, taking the form of different types of revenue. It seems that each form exists independently and has a separate origin – with none of them traceable to the exploitation of labour. With this quantitative division of surplus-value, as Marx notes, “it is forgotten that both [interest and profit of enterprise] are simply parts of surplus-value and that such a division can in no way change its nature, its origin, and its conditions of existence.”

The theory of surplus-value brings to light the connections that actually exist between capitalists, by revealing the ultimate source of capitalist wealth, but that theory itself can be hard to grasp precisely because of the existence of those different revenue forms. Once we take those forms as fixed premises, without considering their origin, it seems natural to judge some capitalists more harshly or kindly than others.

If workers end up concentrating narrowly on the antagonisms between capitalists, it becomes harder to see the more fundamental conflict between wage-labour and capital; and harder to see the real solution to the problems faced. Here we have the old “divide and conquer” approach with a new twist: instead of dividing the working class, the internal divisions of the capitalist class are emphasized to deflect attention from the class divide.

The criticism of Wall Street today that is being voiced by defenders of capitalism is one example of that divide-and-confuse method in action. The current crisis is framed in terms of “Wall Street vs. Main Street” or “the financial world vs. the real economy” – never as a manifestation of the contradictions of class-divided capitalism. With so many criticizing the financial world, while singing the praises of good old commodity production and the capitalists in charge of it, we need to remind ourselves that the production process under capitalism is a process of labour exploitation, a means of generating profits for capitalists.

The task for socialists is not to drive out speculators from capitalism, so as to somehow perfect the system, but to move beyond a world where production is merely a means of capital accumulation. So yes – by all means – let’s chomp down hard on the middle finger Wall Street has been pointing at us all these years, but we should also keep an eye on the hand that robs workers every day on the job.

Michael Schauerte

Weekly Bulletin of The Socialist Party of Great Britain (72)

Dear Friends,

Welcome to the 72nd of our weekly bulletins to keep you informed of changes at Socialist Party of Great Britain @ MySpace.

We now have 1381 friends!

Recent blogs:

The call of the patriot

Democracy - and 'democracy'

Obama wins

Coming Socialist Party Events:

Free Film nights at SPGB Head Office, 52 Clapham High St, London SW4 (nearest tube: Clapham North).

All films start at 4 p.m.

Sunday 23 November: The War on Democracy

"Have we evolved to make money?"

Saturday, 22nd November at 6.00pm

The Socialist Party debates with Dr.Terence Kealey (author of Sex, Science & Profits)

Birkbeck College, (room 407), Malet Street, London. WC1, (nearest tubes: Goodge St & Russell Square)

Quote for the week:

"War is not a pathology that, with proper hygiene and treatment, can be wholly prevented. War is a natural condition of the State, which was organized in order to be an effective instrument of violence on behalf of society. Wars are like deaths, which, while they can be postponed, will come when they will come and cannot be finally avoided." Philip Bobbitt in The Shield of Achilles.

Continuing luck with your MySpace adventures!

Robert and Piers

Socialist Party of Great Britain

Marxism and needs (2008)

Book Review from the October 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

Does Marxism need to be reinterpreted in the light of the ecological problem faced by humanity?

Is the “world of abundance” traditionally advocated by socialists feasible? Not according to Claude Bitot, known as the author of a book on the future of the movement for communism (see Socialist Standard, December 1995), in his recent book Quel autre monde possible? (“What other world is possible”?). Echoing the ideas of some Greens but denying any affinity with them as “bobos” (trendies), Bitot argues that the only viable form of communism (or socialism) today is the austere pre-industrial communism advocated by Babeuf and his followers during the French Revolution and first part of the 19th century.

His criticism of Marx – that he accepted the development of capitalism as a necessary step towards socialism – can be traced back to the influence of a “productivist” or technological determinist reading of Marx, based on The Poverty of Philosophy and the Communist Manifesto, which the great man was considerably qualifying by the time he got round to writing the Grundrisse. According to this simplified version of Marxism – faithfully trotted out by Bitot – it is the development of the forces of production that drives history. Capitalism in the form of merchant capital develops in the pores of feudalism, notably in the towns. Over time the forces of production develop to the point where feudal relations become fetters on the possibilities of further development. Feudalism therefore disappears with the rise of the revolutionary bourgeoisie whose task it is to abolish lordly privilege so as to permit the further development of the forces of production. Eventually the enormous development of the forces of production – notably industrialisation and mass production – would enter into contradiction with the limitations placed on the restricted consumption capacity of the proletarians. The latter in their turn become the new revolutionary class capable whose “historic task” is to overthrow the capitalist class and unleash of the forces of production to meet a greatly expanded range of human needs.

To further add to the confusion, the building of what was falsely called ‘communism’ in Russia by the Soviet authorities popularized the idea that a long transition period – misleadingly called ‘socialism’ – was required in order to bring about the communist utopia. During the transition period working class consumption would be sidelined to allow the breakneck development of the forces of production, (tractor factories, dams, electrical power plants and the like). And there was of course doctrinal justification for such a position given that Marx was absolutely clear that in underdeveloped countries like early twentieth century Russia ‘communism’ was not in any way feasible. Although Marx never separated the ‘socialist’ stage from the ‘communist’ one, the early enthusiasm for the Soviet experiment led to the transitional stage idea sticking. Indeed, many left-leaning thinkers became obsessed with technological development as such, with Bordiga – as Bitot conveniently points out – in the uncomfortable position of trashing the need for further technical advance in capitalist Italy whilst recommending the rapid development of the forces of production in Soviet Russia. This has created a good deal of confusion about what progress towards socialism really means.

Bitot’s objection to capitalist development seems in many ways to be an attempt to overcome the legacy of these confusions in the light of what he rightly considers to be a looming ecological crisis. But he adds a few more confusions of his own. To begin with he goes back to the very origins of communism as a political movement: the agrarian communism of Buonarroti and Babeuf and he contrasts this with what he sees as the consumerist interpretations of socialism popularized during the twentieth century. As we know these pioneering communists were imprisoned and – in Babeuf’s case executed – in the years following the French revolution. Bitot sees in these interpretations an anticipation of the errors which socialists would make in the second half of the twentieth century.
Incorrectly believing that the emergence of agricultural capitalism could be largely explained by the immoderate expansion of needs and taste for luxury, the agrarian communists turned their backs on the unconstrained development of industry and championed a system based on fair but austere shares for all. In this communist utopia technological development in the shape of machinery would take place simply as a need to lighten manual labour, production being oriented toward the meeting of a fixed standard of living.

The development of English commerce depended, Bitot tells us, on the sharpening of acquisitive appetites and the introduction of machinery to meet an ever-expanding sphere of consumption: the upward spiral of capitalist production. This simplified depiction of capitalist development has the advantage of wrong-footing Marx who notoriously celebrated the technical achievements of the English industrial revolution in the Communist Manifesto and castigated the narrow material basis of the agrarian communists in France (he called them “crude communists”). Indeed, since Marx was prepared to admit that industrial capitalism provided the material preconditions for communism, he had in effect became a de facto fellow-traveller in the capitalist party, albeit a pretty unruly one. The solution, according to Bitot was to have nipped the capitalist weed in the bud by a bit of revolutionary action and Bitot appreciates the fact that French agrarian communism was an extension of the revolutionary political approach adopted earlier by Robespierre, the advocate of revolutionary terror. If only, one thinks, the English had read these thinkers rather than that scoundrel Adam Smith then they would have abandoned their silly economic ideas and got us to socialism a lot earlier.

Bitot’s French communists may have been poor but they were neither wage-labourers nor serfs. Subsistence with only limited participation in the monetary economy still remained a possibility and the village could still operate as a community. In this sense, the emergence of capitalism could all too easily be identified with the inability of individuals to control their own desires once faced with the temptations of the marketplace. But however admirable their thinking was on any number of issues – and they were interesting thinkers - they were nonetheless not faced with the peculiar economic system which we now call capitalism. Furthermore, even if agrarian communist communities could have resisted the advent of a world market in agricultural products it is more than likely that an ever-more powerful capitalist class would have found a way to break them up as they have always done and continue to do today.

The problem with Bitot’s interpretation of the communist tradition is that it facilitates the treatment of technological development as a force which develops in a social vacuum justified by a largely ahistorical appreciation of the development of needs. In fact, the aim of the mature Marx was always to demonstrate that the ‘immutable laws’ of political economy were in fact nothing more than the expression of highly specific social and historical relations. The hothouse development of technology under capitalism, for example, was simply a vector of its unremitting search for new markets and its insatiable appetite for profits. As Bitot himself concedes, Marx shows how the needs of the wage labourer under capitalism contain a historical and relative element beyond the purely physiological necessities which also have to be satisfied: in other words my wages now allow me to obtain some commodities which used to be considered as luxuries but I can still be ‘poor’ in the (Marxist) sense that I still have to sell my labour-power to another. Dependence on the capitalist is neither based on being starved nor reduced by the possession of a few luxuries; it resides in the fact that my access to the means of subsistence has become indirect in that it is mediated by the possession of money.

Thus, although Bitot seems to have discovered a convenient jumping off point for the criticism of capitalism, his ideas provide few clues about how to find a way out. In the terms of this critique socialists who continue to believe in the possibility of open access to the means of consumption under socialism can be too easily accused of wanting to continue the consumerist game and Bitot doesn’t hesitate to tar the SPGB. with this brush. On the other hand, Bitot seems to accept that a fairly austere socialism is possible following the abolition of commodity production. But with the wants created by consumer society unconnected to the overall functioning of production, he is left with the difficulty of defining ‘moderate needs’ and showing how they would emerge within a society where commodity production no longer existed. After all, even if we can all agree that socialism will place more emphasis on meeting essential needs over the satisfaction of the trivial desires excited by capitalism, one still has the difficulty of defining these ‘essential needs’ no matter how austere one believes that socialism should be. But the problem of ‘austere’ or ‘abundant’ socialism is perhaps in the final analysis something of a quibble over words. As anyone who has argued the socialist case on a street corner will know, the ‘abundance’ referred to by socialists has never referred to the open-ended consumerism encouraged by the advertisers but has rather as its target a stable and more satisfying way of life in which the scramble to get things is no longer central. With material survival removed from the casino of the marketplace by the abolition of commodity production we can expect that individuals will calm down their acquisitive desires and pursue more satisfying activities.

Fortunately even though he rehearses the usual arguments against socialism brought up by conservatives, Bitot seems reluctant to abandon the revolutionary idea altogether. He remains committed to the abolition of commodity production and has adopted the notion that production under socialism needs to be co-ordinated and de-centralized. (The SPGB can tell him how to do this without the price system). On the down side, he has now taken up the Third World population problem as a factor which he claims has been totally neglected by socialists. Regardless of the charge of inconsistency he then argues that further industrial development in these countries is necessary presumably on the grounds that the Third World exists on another planet. But capitalism is now more than ever a global system – witness the avalanche of books on the ills of globalization. The green beans in our plates come from Kenya, the knives and forks from China and the shirts on our backs from India. Subsidized crops from the advanced countries are killing peasant production in Africa. But the Third World industrial proletariat now outstrips that of the so-called First World. Bitot’s argument here is clearly self-defeating: If there is already a major population problem, then socialism as a world system is not only impossible but it is getting more impossible with every day which passes. So why write a book on the subject? Whilst there is clearly a need to deal with this problem lucidly, Bitot seems to have accepted the Malthusian legend at face value. But he gives only one statistic to prove the case about agricultural production in the Third World whilst First World production is subject to a statistical over-kill. Even Malthus, whose jeremiads have so far proved disastrously wrong, provided more substance to his arguments.

One is left with a curious diatribe against the word ‘abundance’ coupled to an off-centre accusation that socialists advocate a world of passive consumerism and idleness; a picture of the Third World as a boundless reservoir of illegal immigrants associated with the conviction that the abolition of commodity production is nonetheless possible.

Malcolm Mansfield

A Good Listener

From the Socialism Or Your Money Back blog

Studs Terkel, a prolific American writer and broadcaster over several decades, died at the end October at the age of 96. His style and approach is well illustrated by the sub-title of his 1975 book “Working: People talk about what they do all day and how they feel about what they do”. Besides the subject of work, he dealt with leisure, family and education, culture and sub-culture. An article partly based on his writings appeared in the Socialist Standard for August 2003.

Some of Terkel’s nine thousand interviews — especially the broadcast ones — were with celebrities of various kinds. But his books were mainly about the life experiences of everyday men and women. He quoted these graphic words of an assembly-line worker: “I stand in one spot, about two or three feet area all night . . . it don’t stop. It just goes and goes. I bet there’s men who lived and died out there, never seen the end of that line.” Or again: “They give better care to that machine than they will to you . . . If that machine breaks down, there’s somebody out there to fix it right away. If I break down, I’m just pushed over to the other side till another man takes my place. The only thing they have on their mind is to keep that line running.”

Terkel also captured people’s memories of the Depression years and the Second World War. Again and again the themes of solidarity and sharing shine through amidst the destitution and suffering. A woman born in 1911 recalls the ’20s in a mining town in Illinois: “we’d go out picnics, we’d go out fishing, all families. Everything for the picnic. And then when you went to the picnic, there was no money exchanged, no commercial, everything like one big family. They’d cook a pot of mulligan stew and everybody’d share out of that. That was a picnic. Today you go on a picnic, what is it? It’s commercial. You buy your ticket, you buy your popcorn, you buy your beer. If you haven’t got a fistful of money, you haven’t got no picnic.”

As Oliver Sacks once said, “There is no one in the world who can listen like Studs Terkel.” Reading his books provides an unforgettable picture of working-class American life and shows that, contrary to what may sometimes appear, American workers are dissatisfied with their lot and more than prepared to fight for better times.

Socialists and the First World War (2008)

From the November 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

This month marks the 90th anniversary of the end of WWI. We recall the socialist opposition to it.

The historian George Haupt has written that in July 1914 the workers movement did not consider war a possibility. Speaking six years later the German Social Democrat Karl Kautsky admitted that:

“It is surprising that none of those present at the meeting thought of raising the question of what to do if war broke out...or which attitude the socialist parties should adopt in this war” (cited in Georges Haupt: Socialism and the Great War: the Collapse of the Second International. Oxford, 1972. p. 220.])

Haupt comments that it is impossible to say whether the leaders of the International were “captives of their own myths or whether their reaction was the classical manifestation of that characteristic trait of the Second International: Reformist practice screened behind verbal radicalism.” (ibid. p. 221.)

The parties of the Social Democrat Second International shared our view that capitalism causes war and, like us, called for the international solidarity of the working class but when war broke out in August 1914 this proved to be mere talk.

To their disgust, but not to their surprise, the members of the Socialist Party saw workers and their leaders line up behind their respective governments ready to take part in the slaughter. Labour leaders such as Keir Hardie, Ramsay Macdonald and George Lansbury assured the government that “the head office of the Party, its entire machinery, are to be placed at the disposal of the Government in their recruiting campaign.” (Labour Leader 3 September 1914)

The British Socialist Party (successor to the Social Democratic Federation) war manifesto declared that it recognised:

“…that the national freedom and independence of this country are threatened by Prussian militarism and that the Party naturally desires to see the prosecution of the war to a speedy and successful issue.” (Justice 17 September 1914 cited in H. W. Lee and E. Archbold Social-Democracy in Britain: Fifty Years of the Socialist Movement. London, 1935. p.225.)

The Socialist Party on the other hand denounced the war as none of the workers business. It was a war of capitalist interests,

“ ...the workers’ interests are not bound up in the struggle for markets wherein their masters may dispose of the wealth they have stolen from them (the workers), but in the struggle to end the system under which they are robbed....The Socialist Party of Great Britain...declaring that no interests are at stake justifying the shedding of a single drop of working class blood, enters its emphatic protest against the brutal and bloody butchery of our brothers in this and other lands...
Having no quarrel with the working class of any country, we extend to our fellow workers of all lands the expression of our good will and Socialist fraternity, and pledge ourselves to work for the overthrow of capitalism and the triumph of Socialism.”(‘The war and the Socialist position.’ Socialist Standard , September 1914)

In common with most political parties the Socialist Party carried on a vigorous programme of in-door and out-door meetings. From street corners and open spaces Party speakers on platforms propounded the socialist case against war. In his memoirs R. M. Fox (an early member of the Party) recalls the almost mesmeric effect of one Socialist Party member, a man called Anderson, who could project his voice above the noise of a brass band hired by local shopkeepers to drown him out. (R. M. Fox: Smoky Crusade. London. 1938.)

But even the most redoubtable speaker could not withstand the onslaught of a crowd whipped into fever pitch by jingoistic propaganda. There survives in the Party archive a bound minute book recording outdoor meetings held in North London. It records in a neat italic hand each meeting held by the branch giving details of date, time and speaker and chairman. Also recorded are the size of audience and occasional comments as to the kind of questions asked and the temper of the audience. Audience size seems to have fluctuated between 100 and 250. The meetings in August 1914 increased in size and the entry “Many questions mainly about the war. Good meeting” occurs a number of times. On Sunday August 30th a member named Wray addressed an audience this time of around 800:

“Many questions mainly about the war...Hostility shown by the audience so soon as the speaker began to reply to the opposition and the police closed the meeting leaving Party members to get away with the platform amongst the hostile audience that had closed around it and damaged it one side of the steps torn away and lost thus rendering the platform useless for further propaganda meetings.”

A later entry for September 20th records:

“Opposition by Grainger of Daily Herald League [sympathetic to the Labour Party] supported by several members of B.S.P. [British Socialist Party] in the audience with design of raising prejudice against the SPGB and so of breaking up the meeting.”

On a Sunday in mid September one Hyde Park meeting was the subject of a concerted attack. The organiser of the meeting reported

“...There was a determined attack made to smash up the meeting. Just as Elliot was closing the meeting the police intervened and told him to close down. As he did not close down as quick as they wished they arrested him.

Elliott was however, charged with insulting the British armies and fined 30/-. The crowd numbered over a thousand and the organised opposition attempted at the conclusion of the meeting to smash [the] platform but only succeeded in doing a little damage to it.”

At a meeting held on 11 October the speaker replied to questions about the war but “On the speaker replying to the opposition the audience started the National Anthem and the raising of cheers” and the meeting had to be abandoned. It says a great deal for the character, optimism, and bravery of these early members that they could face hostile audiences week after week. Undeterred the branch repaired the platform and were by the end of the week again holding meetings.

Some branches reacted to the threat of physical attack by banding together to continue open air meetings sometimes at new venues. In West Ham three branches got together to hold a meeting in Stratford Grove, an area not previously covered by the Party and its limited resources. It was possibly chosen to avoid marauding gangs of jingoists who were well aware of all the regular meeting places where anti-war sentiments might find expression.

Other branches had better luck. The secretary of East London branch reported that they had abandoned a meeting at Victoria Park after an obviously sympathetic Park Keeper had informed him that there were eight plain clothes men present for the purpose of arresting the Speaker and the Chairman as soon as the meeting started. It would appear that some anti war meetings were having some effect and it is likely that the Party’s informant had listened to the speakers over a period of time, and was at least unwilling to see our views suppressed.

But speakers did not have to oppose the war from the platform to get into trouble. A member named Baggett reported that he had been arrested and bound over in the surety of £50 to keep off the platform for six months. The reason being that he had read out an British Army circular issued by Lord Roberts regarding the supply of prostitutes to the British Army in India.

In view of increasing hostility, and the fact that a number of branches had ceased to hold meetings on account of the difficult situation, the Executive Committee had to consider the suspension of outdoor political activity. Every effort had been made to maintain outdoor meetings but had to recognise the

“...brutality of crowds made drunk with patriotism. The prohibitions by the authorities, and the series of police prosecutions of our speakers, compelled the rank and file of the Socialist Party to put an end to the fruitless sacrifices of their spokesmen by stopping outdoor propaganda.” (‘A Year of War.’ Socialist Standard, August 1915.)

A further consideration was the issue by the Government of stringent Defence of the Realm Regulations outlawing the uttering of statements likely to cause disaffection. The decision appears to have been a difficult one as the minutes record that it was taken after a discussion lasting about two hours. The Party at a special meeting held to discuss the situation ratified the decision. There was clearly a small number within the Party opposed to this course of action and willing to “tough it out” but a motion approving of the Executive Committee decision was carried by a substantial majority.

Explaining that “...our object was not to bid defiance to a world gone mad, but to place the fact that in this country the Socialist position was faithfully maintained by the Socialists.” (Socialist Standard, January 1915.) The Party continued as best it could, male members, under tremendous social and economic pressures, took what measures they could to avoid being called up. Those not so lucky ended up in Dartmoor prison.

Gwynn Thomas

Further reading:

The War and You (September 1914 Socialist Standard)

The War and the Socialist Position (September 1914 Socialist Standard

The call of the patriot (November 1914 Socialist Standard)

The Keir Hardie Myth (1961 Socialist Standard)

The end of “neoliberalism”? (2008)

From the November 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

What the critics of “neoliberalism” want is a “regulated capitalism”, but they are not the only ones.

"Let us", President Sarkozy of France told the UN on 23 September, "rebuild together a regulated capitalism in which whole swathes of financial activity are not left to the sole judgment of market operators, in which banks do their job, which is to finance economic development rather than engage in speculation."

This would normally be regarded as a position taken up by leftwing critics of what they call "neoliberalism". Thus Green Party MEP Caroline Lucas, when asked for her views on the global financial crisis by the Guardian (17 September), answered that "we are going to have to return finance to its role as servant rather than master of the global economy".

Neoliberalism is not a word that Sarkozy would use. In fact, when he was elected President in May last year he was widely seen as France's equivalent of Mrs Thatcher. But then "regulated capitalism" is not how Greens and the other critics of free-market capitalism would describe what they stand for either.

Neoliberalism is a term coined by opponents of the policies pursued by many governments since the 1980s of privatisation and deregulation, of allowing market forces to operate with less state interference. "Neo" because it was seen as a revival of the anti-state, laissez-faire philosophy of 19th century liberalism. As supporters of these policies often call them simply "capitalism", some opponents also presented themselves as "anti-capitalist".

But this is a false distinction. Capitalism is not just private enterprise, free market capitalism. That is just one of the forms it has taken historically. To see this as the only form of capitalism, and therefore to use the term "capitalism" to refer to it only, is to ignore two important experiences of the last century: the nationalisation measures carried out by Labour and Social Democrat (and other) governments, and of course what existed in the ex-USSR and its satellites. Capitalism, in other words, can also take the form of state capitalism.

The essence of capitalism is not any form of ownership – whether legal property rights vested in individuals or companies, or state property from which bondholders draw a legalised income, or state property where a bureaucratic elite exercises a de facto control of it. Capitalism is indeed based on the exercise of a monopoly over the means of production by a minority, but so have other class societies such as ancient slave society, feudalism and oriental despotism.

What distinguishes capitalism from them is the way in which the producing class is exploited – via the wages system. Denied free access to the means of production, the vast majority of the population are forced to sell their working abilities – what Marx called their "labour power" – to an employer for a wage or a salary. Labour-power has the unique property of being able to produce a greater value than its own, but the employers have to pay only the value of the labour-power not the total value it produces. Marx called the value which workers produced over and above their wages, and which went to the employer, "surplus value".

Capitalism is this economic mechanism of the extraction of surplus value from the wage-labour of the producing class and of the accumulation of most of it as new capital. Marx called it "the self-expansion of value". Capitalism is an economic mechanism rather than a form of property ownership, a mechanism which is in fact compatible with various different forms of ownership. Wherever there is the exploitation of wage-labour for surplus value, there there is capitalism. Which is why the ex-USSR where there was state property and a strongly regulated market was still (state) capitalist.

In any event free market capitalism without any state regulation has only ever existed on paper. Capitalism and the state are not opposites or incompatibles. They have always co-existed and in fact capitalism could not have come into existence or survived without the support of the state. It was the state that helped dispossess peasants of their land so that they became factory fodder for the capitalist factory owners. It is the state that creates and enforces private property rights, without which the capitalist class would not be able to monopolise the means of production and extract surplus value from the wage-labour of their employees. The predominant form of capitalist enterprise – the limited liability company – is in fact entirely the creation of the state. The state has to issue the currency and set up bodies to interpret and enforce commercial contracts. It has to maintain armed forces, both to keep law and order internally and to protect and further the interests of the capitalist class abroad. It has to set up bodies to make laws and regulations at national and local level and other bodies to apply, police and enforce them. All these activities essential to the functioning of capitalism have to be paid for. So the state has to levy taxes.

There is, then, no such thing as capitalism without the state. That said, there are still degrees of state regulation at different times and in different countries. The state is supposed to represent the general capitalist interest, but in practice is subject to all sorts of lobbying and pressures from special interest groups who want it to make laws and regulations in their interest, to which it often gives in.

From time to time, however, the state does genuinely intervene in the overall capitalist interest. A classic case was state intervention in the 19th century to regulate the working day. Having machines which could be kept going 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and faced with a glut of factory fodder, capitalist factory owners profited from laissez-faire to extend the working day. A large part of Marx's Capital is devoted to describing what he called "capital's drive towards a boundless and ruthless extension of the working day" and how "the immoderate lengthening of the working day produced by machinery in the hands of capital leads later on to a reaction on the part of society, which is threatened in the very sources of its life, and, from there, to a normal working day whose length is fixed by law" (Capital, Vol I, Ch.15, section 3c). Society was threatened "in the very source of its life" in that factory owners so ruthlessly overworked their workers that their wealth-producing capacities, on which the future of society depended, were being undermined. Marx supported state intervention to stop this happening but he did not regard it as being in any way socialist. Others did and socialism and state intervention unfortunately became associated.

It seems to be a pattern that, whenever capitalists are given a free hand to do what they want, they exaggerate and go for short-term benefits, even at the expense of their long-term interest so that eventually the state has to intervene to restrain them in their own interest. This seems to be the situation that has been reached today after twenty or more years of deregulation of financial markets. The banks and other financial institutions are now widely seen by other sections of the capitalist class as having abused their freedom and thus landed the world capitalist system in the crisis it now finds itself in. This is why the cry is going up for the re-introduction of a stricter state regulation of financial institutions and dealings. And not just from the usual suspects on the Left, but from open supporters of capitalism such as Sarkozy and Gordon Brown.

It looks as if the opponents of “neoliberalism” might well get their way, at least as far as financial sector of capitalism is concerned. But there will be nothing anti-capitalist about this. Just a return to the "regulated capitalism" that used to exist in this sector.

Adam Buick

On Obama

From Reasons To Be Impossible blog

I've resisted so far.

Two quick points. I explained to one of my freinds last night that whilst I am pleased Obama won - on the level of it representing an amazing change in cricumstance for African Americans in less than fifty years, and a change in the perception of race the world over (I think Socialist Economic Bulletin had some interesting thoughts about this); I'm also pleased that Obama may have some policies that, as Chomsky notes, will tendentially benefit the working class stateside more; I'm also pleased more people were drawn to the polls (64% according to Wikipedia, which, whilst not through the ceiling by other countries' standards, is high for stateside); but I still would not have voted for Obama had I been a yanklander myself.

Howard Zinn seems, as ever to spell it out beautifully:

I CONFESS I am excited by the thought of Obama becoming president, even though I am painfully aware of his limitations–his smooth, articulate intelligence covering up a quite traditional approach to domestic and foreign policy, aided and abetted by a group of advisers recycled from the Clinton administration and other parts of the Establishment.

Does he really think Robert Rubin will come up with a bold approach to the economy? Or that Madeleine Albright will carve a new path in foreign policy? (It was she who ran around the country in 1998 to defend Clinton’s bombing of Iraq, warning of “weapons of mass destruction.”)

If Richard Hofstadter were adding to his book The American Political Tradition, in which he found both “conservative” and “liberal” presidents, both Democrats and Republicans, maintaining for dear life the two critical characteristics of the American system, nationalism and capitalism, Obama would fit the pattern.

His obsequious joining with McCain in approving the $700 billion “bailout” for the financial giants is a sad sign. See my article (I say arrogantly) in a recent issue of the Nation about the bailout, as a futile “trickle-down” act, instead of using the money directly for the people Obama claims to represent.

So it will take a revivified social movement to do for Obama what the strikers and tenant organizers and unemployed councils and agitators of the early 1930s did for FDR, pushing him into new paths, so angering the superrich that FDR, in one of his best moments, said, “They hate me, and I welcome their hatred!”

Obama needs such fire. It is up to us, the citizenry–and non-citizens too!–to ignite it.

Obama is most emphatically not a socialist, and whilst a level of public engagement by the population would be welcome and would open minds to more socialistic ideas, I doubt even he could be lurched leftwards. Still, the SPGB's height was during a period of reformist hope, and socialism is bred from promise not despair. After all, building such a movement can lead to a genuine socialist movement being built, why ask them in power when you can begin to do it yourself?

Pik Smeet

Obama wins

From the Socialism Or Your Money Back blog

So the next President of the USA will be Barack Obama. Of course as socialists we know that he is a capitalist politician, the representative of a capitalist party, who will form a capitalist administration to govern the most powerful capitalist country in the world.

And that, as a left-of-centre politician getting support with hints of redistributing wealth to the poorer sections of society, he is going to fail, for the simple reason that capitalism simply cannot be made to work in the interest of the majority of the members of society. It is a profit-making system that can only work as such, in the interest of the tiny minority who own and control the means of production and live off the profits produced by the unpaid labour of the majority.

This said, there are two points that can be made.

First, the rapidity with which ideas can change. A few decades ago it was unthinkable that a man regarded as “black” could be elected President of the USA by an a predominantly “white” electorate. It is only about fifty years since most “blacks” in the South were allowed to vote and that segregation was ended. In some States the union of Obama’s mother and father would have been illegal. But now, under the pressure of experience, such prejudices have been abandoned by a majority of people in America. We can look forward to the time when same thing happen to the pro-capitalist prejudices still held by the majority.

Second, the much higher turn-out shows that when people judge, rightly or wrongly, that what is at stake is important they are prepared to turn out and vote. We’ve seen this before in other circumstances, even if there too the issue wasn’t really as important as the majority judged. But they thought it was, and acted on this. In other words, that voting is a way in which a change in consciousness from pro-capitalist to socialist will express itself, despite what the “anti-parliamentarists” say.

Adam Buick

Debating and discussing ’Which way to revolution?’

In 8-parts, the links to the YouTube clips of the Socialist Party's 20th October debate with Class War's Ian Bone on the subject of 'Which Way to Revolution?'

Debating for the Socialist Party was Swansea Branch's Howard Moss and in the chair for the meeting was a fellow SPGB blogger. (Mentioning no names. Providing no links. You'll have to guess for yourself.)

I've yet to watch the debate in full myself but I thought I'd post it up asap because H over at Cactus Mouth Informer was asking after it a few weeks back.

You can also download an audio version of the debate over here if you're more the iPod type of armchair activist.

Pt.1 'Which Way to Revolution?'

Pt.2 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Wkv31_D1Ak8

Pt.3 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NissNsnNIjs

Pt.4 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=I2-0Txi5MDI

Pt.5 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1ylp3BQExzo

Pt.6 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc1PfYmd2mc

Pt.7 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=HpUM0dlYEr0

Pt.8 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=A91UTei_zIA

Weekly Bulletin of The Socialist Party of Great Britain (71)

Dear Friends,

Welcome to the 71st of our weekly bulletins to keep you informed of changes at Socialist Party of Great Britain @ MySpace.

We now have 1379 friends!

Recent blogs:

The end of 'neoliberalism'?

The Great US Presidential Election Show

Ideology and censorship in capitalist society

Coming Socialist Party Events:

Free Film nights at SPGB Head Office, 52 Clapham High St, London SW4 (nearest tube: Clapham North).

All films start at 4 p.m.

Sunday 9 November: Zeitgeist

Sunday 23 November: The War on Democracy

"Have we evolved to make money?"

Saturday, 22nd November at 6.00pm

The Socialist Party debates with Dr.Terence Kealey (author of Sex, Science & Profits)

Birkbeck College, (room 407), Malet Street, London. WC1, (nearest tubes: Goodge St & Russell Square)

Quote for the week:

"So tractable, so peaceable, are these people, that I swear to your Majesties there is not in the world a better nation. . . [they should be] made to work, sow and do all that is necessary and to adopt our ways." Christopher Coloumbus to the King and Queen of Spain on reaching San Salvador Island in 1492.

Continuing luck with your MySpace adventures!

Robert and Piers

Socialist Party of Great Britain

The Revolutionary Vote

From the World Socialist Party of the United States website

The vote is a gain, a potential class weapon, a potential “instrument of emancipation” as Marx put it. Despite Lenin’s distortions, Marx and Engels always held that the bourgeois democratic republic was the best political framework for the development and triumph of the socialist movement. This is another pre-1914 socialist position we see no reason to abandon.

Certainly, political democracy under capitalism is not all that it is purported to be by many supporters of the system and it is severely limited, from the point of view of democratic theory, by the very nature of capitalism as an unequal, class-divided society. Certainly, “democracy” has become an ideology used to give capitalist rule a spurious legitimacy . But it is still sufficient to allow the working class to organise politically and economically without too much state interference and also, we would argue, to allow a future socialist majority to gain control of political power.

In a vote between lesser of two evils , ” Vote Cholera or Vote for Typhoid” , ( btw , someone once said “Those who choose the lesser of two evils soon forget that what they chose is an evil” ) Not voting at all is valid, but casting blank ballots or some other form of actively announcing not voting is better. One or two spoilers/blank voters can be ignored, tens of thousands or even millions could not be - especially if backed by a vocal movement explaining the situation. (see the Argentinian example).

In Britain, Canada and most of America, etc I don’t think we’ve any fundamental objection to the electoral system; the provisions for voter registration, nomination of candidates, counting of votes, declaration of result,etc can be inherited by socialism and, with modifications, continue to be used. We also think, of course, that the present electoral mechanisms can be used to express and count, more or less fairly and accurately, a majority desire for socialism. So we’ve no interest in running down the system as such. The way to show that you accept the electoral system but reject the sham choice is to go and use it but not vote for any of the candidates.

There is nothing inherently elitist about the electoral approach. It is how you use that approach that makes it elitist. The World Socialist Movement is not asking people to vote for them so they can solve the problems the electorate have to contend with. The WSM it is saying quite clearly that workers need to understand and support socialism themselves in order for it to come about It cannot be imposed from above. Furthermore, we constantly makes the point to workers in elections that if they dont understand or support socialism then they should not vote for the WSM. The WSM does not propose to come “into office”, ie to form a government and so does not propose “to vote itself into office”. Nor to we propose that other people should “vote us into office” either. What we do propose is that people should, amongst other things, use the vote in the course of the social revolution from capitalism to socialism; that they should, if you like, vote capitalism out of office. To do this they will need to stand recallable mandated delegates at elections but these will be just this: messenger boys and girls, not leaders or would-be government ministers, sent to formally take over and dismantle “the central State”. The situation we envisage in which a majority vote in socialist delegates is one where the revolution ,in respect of socialist ideas has already begun to accelerate.The vote is merely the legitimate stamp which will allow for the dismantling of the repressive apparatus of the States and the end of bourgeois democracy and the establishment of real democracy.It is the Achilles heel of capitalism and makes a non-violent revolution possible.What matters is a conscious socialist majority outside parliament, ready and organised to take over and run industry and society; electing a socialist majority in parliament is essentially just a reflection of this. It is not parliament that establishes socialism, but the socialist working-class majority outside parliament and they do this, not by their votes, but by their active participating beyond this in the transformation of society.

Basically, there are only three ways of winning control of the State: (a) armed insurrection; (b) more or less peaceful mass demonstrations and strikes; (c) using the electoral system.

The early, pre-WWI members of the WSM adopted, in the light of then existing political conditions, for (c), but without ruling out (b) or even (a) should these conditions change (or in other parts of the world where conditions were different).But this was never understood as simply putting an “X” on a ballot paper and letting the Socialist Party and its MPs establish Socialism for workers. The assumption always was that there would be a “conscious” and active Socialist majority outside Parliament, democratically organised both in a mass Socialist political party and, at work, in ex-trade union type organisations ready to keep production going during and immediately after the winning of political control.Having adopted (c), various other options follow. Obviously, if there’s a Socialist candidate people who want Socialism are urged to vote for thatcandidate. But what if there’s no Socialist candidate? Voting for any other candidate is against the principles. So what to do? The basic choice is/was between abstention and spoiling the ballot paper (by writing “Socialism” across it). The policy adopted and confirmed ever since was the latter, ie a sort of write-in vote for Socialism.

The first step towards taking over the means of production, therefore, must be to take over control of the state, and the easiest way to do this is via elections. But elections are merely a technique, a method. The most important precondition to taking political control out of the hands of the owning class is that the useful majority are no longer prepared to be ruled and exploited by a minority; they must withdraw their consent to capitalism and class rule-they must want and understand a socialist society of common ownership and democratic control.We need to organise politically, into a political party, a socialist party. We don’t suffer from delusions of grandeur so we don’t necessary claim that we are that party. What we are talking about is not a small educational and propagandist groupsuch as ourselves , but a mass party that has yet to emerge. It is such a party that will take political control via the ballot box, but since it will in effect be the useful majority organised democratically and politically for socialism it is the useful majority, not the party as such as something separate from that majority, that carries out the socialist transformation of society.

They will neutralise the state and its repressive forces and as stated there is no question of forming a government , and then proceed to take over the means of production for which they will also have organised themselves at their places of work. This done, the repressive state is disbanded and its remaining administrative and service features, reorganised on a democratic basis, are merged with the organisations which the useful majority will have formed to take over and run production, to form the democratic administrative structure of the stateless society of common ownership that socialism will be.

This is perhaps a less romantic idea of the socialist revolution but a thousand times more realistic. Which is why we think this is the way it will happen. When the time comes the socialist majority will use the ballot box since it will be the obvious thing to do, and nobody will be able to prevent them or persuade them not to. At that time it will be the anti-electoralists who will be irrelevant. A real democracy is fundamentally incompatible with the idea of leadership. It is about all of us having a direct say in the decisions that affect us. Leadership means handing over the right to make those decisions to someone else. We have at our disposal today the very means, in the form of modern telecommunications, that could enable us to resuscitate the ancient model of Athenian democracy on a truly global level.

Professor of Dismal Science

From the Socialism Or Your Money Back blog

Everyone wants to know is Barack Obama a socialist? Well, one might be forgiven for thinking so judging by the two million seven hundred and ninety thousand Google results to this question! Whatever, let us suppose you really do want to know - who ya gonna call? Ask whoever you want, and keep asking but be prepared for some confusing and contradictory answers. Perhaps if you are lucky or persistent, you will come across the Crapbusters. They are attracted like flies to anything with a high BS value. A Professor of Economics answering this question about BO in the Christian Science Monitor (sic), is likely to have a Bogus Socialism value that's off the scale. Until the end of last month we were spared such an abortion of socialst understanding.

Professor Boudreaux of George Mason University considers that BO is 'not exactly' a socialist, which is rather like saying that the DPRK isn't exactly democratic. The Professor's next mistake is to say "in the classic sense of the term "Socialism" originally meant government ownership of the major means of production and finance, such as land, coal mines, steel mills, automobile factories, and banks." BS! Actually, the term ‘socialist’ is found for the first time in the Owenite Co-operative Magazine of November 1827, where it stands for a society of common ownership. Marx and Engels used the words ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’ interchangeably to refer to a society of common ownership.

The Professor's goes on to state that a "principal promise of socialism was to replace the alleged uncertainty of markets with the comforting certainty of a central economic plan. No more guessing what consumers will buy next year and how suppliers and rival firms will behave: everyone will be led by government's visible hand to play his and her role in an all-encompassing central plan. The "wastes" of competition, cycles of booms and busts, and the "unfairness" of unequal incomes would be tossed into history's dustbin." Buy? Rival firms? Government? Central plan? None of these are features of Socialism, which the Professor says has utterly failed. By this he must mean efforts taken by the state to control capitalism's boom & bust business cycles, which is true enough.

Invoking the ghosts of Heilbroner and Hayek does not do the Professor any favours, as their understanding of Socialism is no better than his. Similiary, by saying that the collapse of the Iron Curtain has anything to do with Socialism Bourdreaux is digging himself an even deeper hole. Some countries today, as well as the Iron Curtain dictatorships of the past, have a form of state capitalism. The main features of this system are

· State ownership of the principal means of production.

· Generalised wage labour.

· Generalised use of money and money calculation.

· A relatively free market for consumer goods in the form of agricultural products and light industrial products.

· A market for means of production which is closely monitored by the state.

· Wide-scale planning activity, allocating supplies and directing products within the sphere of heavy industry, setting production targets, fixing prices and directing the flows of capital.

· A sizeable black-market.

Later Boudreaux produces another howler: "socialism's requirement that each person behave in ways prescribed by government planners is a recipe for tyranny." We in the World Socialist Movement stick to our principles and the original meaning of socialism: common ownership, democratic control and production solely for use. What place tyranny? More BS! Wealth we are told results chiefly from risk taking and explains how Michael Dell (you might be using one of 'his' computers) became a capitalist. BS! Wealth is, by definition, a product of human labour, acting upon nature-given materials, that is capable of satisfying needs. This identifies wealth with use-value. But capitalism is a society where wealth becomes a commodity having exchange value also, and sometimes only a socially-bounded use-value that is peculiar to this society – as with nuclear weapons.

So, the really important question is not whether we have Tweedledee or Tweedledum with his finger on the nuclear button, or even if BO is full of BS, but rather if you want to side with the Professor of Dismal Science and his capitalist masters in supporting a global system in which war, waste and want are endemic or strive for its replacement with real Socialism?

Material World: The War Business: Why do capitalist states prepare for and wage war? (2008)

The Material World column from the November 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

As we socialists never tire of pointing out, the primary function of military power in capitalism is to protect and expand control over resources, markets and transport routes on behalf of the capitalist class of the country concerned. However, the costs and risks that wars and armaments entail for the capitalists themselves often outweigh the benefits to them.

For example, while the U.S. did have real interests at stake in Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s, those interests were hardly commensurate with the enormous costs of the war it was waging there. Growing awareness of this fact within the capitalist class eventually led to withdrawal.
In other words, states have a tendency to act in ways that appear to be irrational even in terms of the capitalist interests that they are supposed to represent.

War – a capitalist enterprise
There are various reasons for this apparent irrationality. But the main reason is this. War is not only a service that the state provides to the national capitalist class as a whole. War is also – and increasingly – a massive capitalist enterprise in its own right, a “war business” that wields considerable political clout and has special interests of its own.

The core of the war business, of course, is the so-called military-industrial complex. Arms manufacturers, like other capitalist firms, seek to maximise their profits. It does not concern them whether the weapons they sell have a cogent strategic rationale.

The military-industrial complex has a direct interest not only in the build-up of armaments but in war itself. War is the only way of testing weaponry under battlefield conditions. It uses up and destroys old stocks that then have to be replaced – rearmament is now, for instance, the top priority of the Georgian government – and stimulates demand in general.

But nowadays arms firms are not the only large-scale “merchants of death.” Companies like Blackwater sell combat capability directly as the labour of hired mercenaries. Other companies, such as Halliburton, sell logistics and other war support services.

Resource wars, “strategic” wars
The argument is not that all armed conflicts are irrational in terms of the costs and benefits accruing to national capital. Some undoubtedly make good sense in these terms, as when valuable resources can be acquired at moderate expense. One example might be the “cod wars” of the 1970s between Britain and Iceland over fishing rights in the North Atlantic. Another, perhaps, is the ongoing conflict over the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, whose oil and gas deposits are coveted by China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia.

At the other extreme, some wars have no discernible connection with the control of markets and resources. The recent war in Georgia was in this category (see October “Material World”). Although important oil and gas pipelines run through the south of the country, Russia did not contest control over them. Russia’s rationale for war was “strategic” – that is, getting into a better position to fight future wars.

Again, Israel’s wars are senseless from the point of view of the Israeli capitalist class as a whole, which has a clear interest in a peace settlement that will give it full access to the markets and cheap labour of the Middle East. This interest, however, seems unable to prevail against the political stranglehold of Israel’s military-industrial complex.

The nature of the wars that the US and its allies are currently fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan is less clear-cut. Control of resources, markets and transport routes is certainly an important factor, especially in Iraq, but the likely outcome is hardly such as to justify the enormous costs involved. While the ultimate motive for war may be to arrest the decline in the competitive position of the US in the world economy, the actual effect is to accelerate that decline (see May “Material World”).

Capitalism and war: two models
So we end up with two contrasting models of the relationship between capitalism and war. In the first model, war appears as an instrument in the hands of the state, which acts as the “executive committee of the (national) capitalist class as a whole” (Marx). The second model, unlike the first, takes into account the fact that war is evolving from an instrument at the service of the national capitalist class as a whole into a capitalist enterprise in its own right -- what we might call the war business. The war business has special capitalist interests of its own, so it cannot function simply as an instrument of more general capitalist interests.

Does the first model represent capitalism in its “normal” form, while the second model represents an “abnormal” ultra-militaristic mutation of the capitalist system? Is the first model rational, in capitalist if not in human terms, while the second model is irrational? At first sight that seems reasonable.

But is there in fact any good reason to regard one model as any more irrational than the other? Each model represents a possible variant of capitalism and a possible form of capitalist rationality. The difference is that the first model assumes the existence of such a thing as “national capital as a whole,” while the second model envisions only separate capitalist enterprises. Some firms sell sausages, some sell computers – and some sell war.

Stephen Shenfield

Editorial: Is capitalism crumbling? (2008)

The Editorial from the November 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

Capitalism has never had such a bad press as the last few months. Countless commentators have given more than a passing consideration to the question, will capitalism collapse? Whilst this hopeful question could be expected to emanate from excitable journalists, and from the rump of what remains of the left-wing throughout the world, it should be noted that the likes of Bill Gates and Nicolas Sarkozy have been asking similar questions.

The real challenge to capitalism however is not so much a challenge to its on-going operation – it will carry on in some shape or form regardless. The last few months are after all nothing other than a "market correction", albeit a pretty big and widespread one. Rather, the challenge to capitalism is one that is of more interest to world socialists.

For us worthwhile social change cannot come about blindly in knee-jerk reaction to events, nor in the role of passive bystanders as events unfold around us. What has become crystal clear over the last few weeks is the extent to which the experts of capitalism, the self-styled "Masters of the Universe" were flying by the seat of their silk monogrammed pants, with little idea what they were actually buying and selling.

Genuine social change will require more than just restricting executives' bonuses, or trying to improve regulation of the financial services sector, as many are calling for. Even when it is working right, even when it is booming, the market system fails miserably to do the one thing it claims as its unique selling point. Far from efficiently sending market signals between supply and demand, between producer and consumer, the market system sends confused, unreliable and skewed information.

And of course there are some areas of demand that the economic system is just not interested in even supplying – because of the low profit returns available. World hunger is one example illustrating how the market operates on the basis of profit, not human need. There can surely be few clearer signs of the priorities of capitalism than the contrast between the painfully slow progress made to address world hunger over the last few decades, and the haste with which politicians around the world have responded to the banking crisis. The sums of money hastily committed to increase banks' liquidity and stabilise the sector would – if used to meet real human needs - ensure not one person need die of hunger for the next 23 years.

Capitalism won’t collapse of its own accord. But for many millions it has never functioned to start with. Instead the market system must be dismantled intellectually, ideologically and democratically. A genuine alternative society must be agreed before capitalism can start to be dismantled in reality, with alternative mechanisms emerging to replace both the market and the state.

If we want to get rid of capitalism we will need to work at it. That's why we exist: to try and help as one small part of that massive process. If you want to help out in that process – if you want to become humanity to become a "master" of its universe – then please make contact, and the sooner we may succeed.